Redefinitions of STO and STS (Service to Others, Service to Self)

The more I consider the matter, the more it seems that all must be redefined.

One of the challenges is to trace the universal notion of balance through all its aspects, and somewhere there the defining principles of contraction and expansion intersect the plane of human behavior and choice. This is a tall order but then we have eternity to chart the waters.

The question of ethics is like a sponge – the deeper you go, the subtler the dual aspects of choices become, the more tenuous the dividing line of STS (Service to Self) and STO (Service to Others). In a manner of speaking, it’s like a fractal, the closer you look the more the same pattern and variations repeat. One lesson of third density thus seems to be that the line is not drawn between large groups but between individuals and principally inside or through these individuals as Laurahas so frequently reiterated, and we have witnessed in the Theological battle with Vincent Bridges and his gang of spiritual terrorists.

Philosophers tried establishing a general basis for ethics. Kant proposed to ‘act in ways such that you could wish that their underlying principle were universally followed.’ It so happens this golden rule can fully well be observed in the STS mode. Simply, setting up ruling elites and control and such is good for the controlled because this provides incentive for STS polarization for those individuals who are ‘deserving of advance’ in the STS world.

So the golden rule will not do as a basis for our working definition.

I think the game is so designed, in teleological terms, that we can’t give a single sentence definition of applied STO or STS ethics. Besides it’s rather seldom that we see completely polarized forms of either.

Let’s try something else: If an exchange has some characteristic of symmetry it could be an STO exchange. Such can of course occur between beings of vastly different level and capacity, as exemplified by the C’s and 3D humans, but still it is done without an overwhelming show of force or asserting dominance.

Then we get to talk about love.

Quite briefly, in the words of the ever eloquent Ra, what passes for 3D sexual love is orange ray, with aspects of exclusivity, dominance, control and such. The higher notion of love is green ray, which is also an exchange, but does not involve polarity in the sense of dominate/submit, give/take, etc. Thus green ray exchanges could be more symmetrical or STO. Some have written of conscious love, where this was to unconditionally support the fullest realization of the beloved. Maybe this is a green/blue ray concept (love + true communication).

From symmetry we could expand to a concept of mutual expansion. Interactions which are somehow co-creative, or have a complementary flow could be in the service to others mode. But we have to expand the definition away from a contract of exchange between two entities into an outward flowing motion that is not limited to some specific partnership.

What I mean is for example the fact that probably from the C’s (Cassiopaeans) perspective we don’t have a whole lot to give in exchange to them, thus a trade type of relationship does not really apply. Of course we can say that this is a feedback loop where they guide their own past to reinforce their future place. This may even be a somewhat universal pattern, but may not be the only possible configuration of such exchanges. Thus propagating a received impulse, as Ark and Laura seek to do, can be a way of maintaining the flow. To pass on and apply what is received, if it is received in an STO mode is an act in the same mode. This is broadly speaking, thus is not limited to channeled information or such.

Then we have free will – Generally we could say that respecting others’ free will is STO, but since free wills can be in direct opposition we have a lot of added complexity here.

In the world of battles, we could say that STO forces may defend that which naturally seeks to explore the other aspects of service to others. This includes self-defense individually and as groups. Generally offering a choice for the light in proportion to the forced darkness would be an act of service to others even if it directly contradicts the free will of those who wish to maintain said darkness. On the other hand, if a choice is not even potentially wanted, offering it makes no sense either. Ra and others discuss this further, caveats apply, as usual.

Anyway, the lines of confrontation in the metaphysical world are quite distinct from those between the interests of separate self-serving groups and the items hanging in the balance are more diverse.

OK, it looks like we can derive some general definitions and quote various others’ definitions. Can we act based on these?

I don’t believe in the feasibility or desirability of a top-down instruction manual for what is what. So each soul writes their manual on the way, which is a creative process in itself, much more so than acting according to external instructions. And so it is: rituals restrict the progress of the soul; crushing creativity.

Of course, from our point of view we can be so eager to change the world and have everybody join and so on, that there is some frustration in that understanding can only be offered but not forced. It seems that developing a sense of discernment concerning this fundamental duality is the basic goal of 3D individuated state. For this reason it is of necessity a somewhat individual process. The immediate and ready recognition of polarities is a feature of 4D and may indirectly follow from integrating the data in 3D.

A checklist is hard to formulate, we could still think of some criteria:

Is the action requested?

Does the action presuppose a right to control?

Does the action open possibilities or create connections, internal or external?

Is the action self-contradictory?

Is the action covert and manipulative?

Is the action open-ended?

Is there a possibility of a positive reinforcement loop?

Of course, any of the above can be taken to some ridiculous and self-defeating extreme, so we don’t have a manual, we just have thoughts to ponder.

As for logical progression as opposed to intuition, I’d say both can serve either STO or STS, acts of either type can either be spontaneous or coming from long reflection. The now time as opposed to linear time has more to do with the mind’s interface to reality and its internal contradictions of self-restriction, and overcoming linearity has applications in both polarities. So-called intellect and emotion find uses on both sides. How these may work in different styles, so to speak is a fascinating subject in its own right and maybe we’ll play with that at another time.

Do we get into a fully relative world of each making their definition?

Not really, since there seem to be islands of self-consistent definitions separated by areas of chaos, which do not form sustainable guidelines of action. Thus the fullest expressions of STO and STS have a sort of universal validity and thus are not arbitrary. It could be likened to mathematical truths: There are only 5 Platonic solids, and this is not a question of interpretation. Likewise taking fully arbitrary sets of axioms does not produce interesting systems.

In this sense, truth has substance independent of an observer’s interest or interpretation.